Judges in Va. appear skeptical about health overhaul arguments

[alp227]

Source: The Washington Post

RICHMOND — A panel of three federal appeals court judges aggressively questioned attorneys in a Virginia courtroom Tuesday who argued over the constitutionality of the federal health care overhaul — appearing particularly skeptical of arguments that sought to invalidate the law.

During a hearing that lasted more than two hours, the judges — all appointed by Democratic presidents — frequently interrupted lawyers on both sides to probe their legal positions.

Both cases — brought separately by Liberty University in Lynchburg and Virginia Attorney General Ken T. Cuccinelli II (R) — argue that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce by requiring that individuals obtain health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty.

Though the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit tends to rule in about 45 days, the judges Tuesday offered no indication of how long they would take before deciding the cases, which resulted from appeals of contradictory lower court decisions.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/politics/federal_appeals_court_panel_in_va_spars_with_attorneys_questioning_health_law/2011/05/10/AFJncrkG_singlePage.html

---

The judges hearing this case are:
- Diana Gribbon Motz (Clinton)
- Andre M. Davis (Obama)
- James A. Wynn Jr. (Obama)

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. What gives Liberty University standing to sue?

What's their harm?

[AlbertCat]

3. What gives Liberty University standing to sue?

Arrogance? Hubris?

[elleng]

5. Dunno fully, but representing 'individuals' interests, mebbe.

'The judges seemed particularly dubious of Virginia’s assertion that it has legal standing to sue. A lower court judge had previously accepted Cuccinelli’s contention that Virginia has a sovereign interest in protecting a state law passed last year by the General Assembly that makes it illegal to require Virginians to be insured.

But lawyers for the Obama administration argued that the individual mandate imposes burdens on citizens, not states, and so Virginia has no legal interest in the case. . .

The judges also asked probing questions of Mathew D. Staver, a lawyer for Liberty University, challenging Staver’s assertion that a citizen who goes without health insurance has chosen not to engage in economic activity.

Staver and other opponents of the law argue that it would be unprecedented for government to force individuals to buy a product — health insurance — when they have chosen to go without it. Congress’ power to regulate commerce can’t give it power to require a person to take part in commerce, they argue.

“These requirements that you think are so important, this activity, does that have a constitutional basis? What in the commerce clause would require activity?” asked Judge Motz.

“I think it’s inherent when you’re talking about regulating commerce . . . commerce cannot be idleness,” Staver responded.

Katyal countered that, in fact, an individual who goes without insurance nevertheless takes part in the commerce of the vast health care market. That’s because, even without insurance, he will ultimately consume health care services when he gets sick or is injured and shows up at the emergency room.'

[AlbertCat]

2. Interesting.... the whole article....

The Judges asked about and pointed out some very obvious flaws in the (twisted, IMHO) logic of these challenges.

And, I can't stand it....even though this hasn't to do with the subject of the article. But who the hell is editing these things? Middle school students? Here's a sentence from it:

"An appeals court in Atlanta is scheduled to hear oral arguments next month on a challenge filed jointly by 26 states in Florida."


There are 26 states in Florida???? :eyes:

[alp227]

4. that's what the passive voice does...

it's a rather awkward way of phrasing the case Florida et al v. United States Department of Health and Human Services: 25 other states joined Florida in that lawsuit that was heard in a Florida district court.

[lfairban]

6. Would anybody like to guess . . .

. . . what is going to happen if this goes to the Supreme Court?

[SoapBox]

7. Me! Me! I'll guess...

The Five Activist Judges will knock the whole thing down...using some kind of flimsy crap decision.

Why?

Because they hate America and hate Americans.

Get ready to JUST DIE quickly America!

[Bandit]

8. If the government can not force someone to buy insurance

It would impact auto insurance as well. I know people will say you are not forced unless you use their service (roads) but the same logic should apply if you use a hospital..

[No Elephants]

9. What if you prefer to simplyy pay your own hospital bill? Anyway, same logic does not apply.

I you are 26, You may have to pay insurance for years and years, evem your whole life, without needing to use a hospital. People who have no need of a car are not required to buy auto insurance.

Besides, if I don't want to be forced to buy private auto insurance, I do NOT have to give up using any roads. I have plenty of reasonable alternatives. I can walk, take a cab or public transportation, hitch a ride, get a friend to give me a lift, drive my friend's insured car, call a car service, etc.

If I don't want to be forced to buy health insurance from private companies, I have no reasonable alternatives, only suicide.

Yes, both scenarios involve mandatory private insurance., but that's the only similarity. The full situations are very different.

[SteveG]

10. The problem is

that if you have no health insurance and get into an auto accident or have a medical emergency such as appendicitis, you will be using the hospital and medical resources, and if you cannot pay (say you wrack up costs of a couple of hundred thousand - easy if you are in the ICU for a week with surgery), who is going to pay, the taxpayer, and those who are already paying for insurance. My solution for people who don't want coverage, be prepared to prove you have the capacity to pay before any medical services are rendered.